Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freak

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freak

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but a series of dicdefs with no connection. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freak (disambiguation). Inclusion as an article on the term's sociological significance has not been included, and does not seem notable to be given its own article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Freak (disambiguation) should be moved to Freak. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and trim to reflect the primary historically significant usage in reference to people with unusual physical characteristics. There is a clear primary topic here, even if the article addresses it a bit loosely. bd2412 T 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject that should cover the historically significant usage in reference to people with unusual physical characteristics. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freak is never dicdef otherwise related topics like horror, fear, shock and whatnot we will all delete them as dicdefs. Just it didn't get fine copy editor. But more reason of keeping it is this is (almost) entirely sourced to academic books by renowned academic presses and that's our most trusted sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is nonsensical as there's no dictionary-style material here and, even if there were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.